Seriously though, in terms of the philosophy I'm stressing... what I'm saying is that the End Times are characterised by a falling
away, and not by some great return to Christianity and the establishment of Christ's Kingdom on earth (which, from what I've seen, is what you
believe, correct me if I'm wrong).

I was brought up a Seventh Day Adventist, which is I guess to label it, pre-millennial, post-tribulation
rapture eschatology. This is what I have always held up to at least two weeks ago. I have taken a much harder look at what all that is based on,
including what the individual Greek words mean, and I have come away not believing any of it. I think the end of the world was just as Jesus said it
would be, which was when he was crucified. The end of what was prophesied, maybe more approprietly. Like I said, this way of looking at it is new to
me and I don't have it all worked out yet or even know how to define it, other than maybe, Amillennialism, something I need to look into.

edit
on 4-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I think... no, I know... that if you take your time and study both the Old and New Testaments in depth, you'll find that to be an untenable
position. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, the OT minor and major prophets speak constantly about Christ's return, and the millenial kingdom.
Christ didn't return in the lifetime of the apostles. If He had, he'd have failed miserably... because of the mountainous volume of unfulfilled
prophecies. When did God "put Jesus' enemies under his feet", or "establish His throne on His holy hill, Zion", or any one of ten thousand other
things? When, as in Zechariah 12:10, did Israel "look on the one they have pierced, and mourn as one mourns for an only child"? When did the
entire nation of Israel experience revival, as in Zechariah 12? When did God "write His Word on their hearts" so that "no man will teach another"
(Jeremiah 34)?

There is far too much in Scripture that remains unfulfilled. The beliefs that you're espousing (and I'm not being critical here, I should stress...
you're obviously seeking with some degree of honesty and integrity, and I respect that) will force you into a symbolic and non-literal
interpretation of Scripture, and that's a really dangerous position to be in... just as it's dangerous to allow the works of man to dictate your
interpretation of God's Word (as you have with several texts). Be really careful with that. I heard a really great quote the other day, and it went
something like this:

"I have never made the mistake of taking the Bible too literally... but the more I read, the more I learn, the more history unfolds, the more
convinced I am that I haven't taken it literally enough!"

. . .will force you into a symbolic and non-literal interpretation of Scripture, and that's a really dangerous position to be in... just
as it's dangerous to allow the works of man to dictate your interpretation of God's Word (as you have with several texts)

I've always taken
these things in the most literal way possible. Most people never even heard of the SDA Church, much less the eschatology they believe in, so my
pointing that out apparently is not helpful so I should describe it a bit by saying it is like I said, the most literal way possible to take all the
supposedly end time prophecies. I doubt I could live long enough to where I would end up seeing everything being symbolic, other than Revelation which
to me now is something that describes itself as being visions of imagery which are symbols.
I am going down a literal interpretation but based on a more (to me) literal translation of the verses the basic concepts of are based on.
Feel free to point out where I allow the works of man dictate my interpretation. I always invite criticism because I am not always able to see myself
objectively.

"will force you into a symbolic and non-literal interpretation of Scripture, and that's a really dangerous position to be in... just as it's
dangerous to allow the works of man to dictate your interpretation of God's Word (as you have with several texts). Be really careful with that. I
heard a really great quote the other day, and it went something like this: "I have never made the mistake of taking the Bible too literally... but
the more I read, the more I learn, the more history unfolds, the more convinced I am that I haven't taken it literally enough!"

So here is my point; 1st Satan hasnt risen yet, but when SHe does there is no reason not to believe s/he will not be the bride of Christ and the
Daughter of GOD saince Man alaready killed GOD's Son. GOD will do as the scripture says and give it to another. This other will also be a Heir to
the throne or the Daughter of GOD's because due to male and female made he them; is the only choice left. There is a Queen of Heaven and a Queen of
the South; that Jesus said would rise up; so Jesus Christ as the king of kings, is entitled to a Queen and this queen shall be a female or woman. The
world will not end until the entire mystery is revealed.

I really wish i could make any sense out of your post's, but unfortunately all i see is arrogance and a man that is stuck in his ways. May Yeshua
Ha`Mashiach bless you and lead you on a path of repentance.

I was willing to let the thread just die, but since you bring it up, it does seem quite ironic to me, I just didn't want to be the first one to
say that since I am involved, so not exactly the most objective.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.